landing the climate regime in paris 2015 laurence tubiana professor sciences po and columbia...

Landing the climate regime in Paris 2015

Laurence Tubiana

Professor Sciences po and Columbia University

What is at stake in Paris in 2015

• It is simple :• It is about changing economic and political

signals in favor of the low carbon economy• It is about the alignment of expectations of:– Governments– Local authorities– Businesses– Consumers and citizens

How we do that?

• This is not simple ! required : something like a sheepdog or a magic fluteThe notion of a centralized emission of the signal have disappeared together with time tables and targets model including a global

carbon price

Two pillars of the Paris compact

• The agreement between governments within UNFCC mandate : the sheep dog

• The actions of all supporting the UNFCCC agreement : the flute player

• And a cross-cutting innovation and R and D agenda

Two pillars of the Paris compact

• UNFCCC agreement : the sheepdog method

• Legal agreement on processes : the remaining top down elements

• Push and pull : national contributions as the center piece

Mitigation contributions

A fundamental shift from a ‘logic of targets’ to a ‘logic of pathways’.

Under a ‘logic of pathways’, countries would submit long-term, indicative low emissions pathways, combined with operational multi-sector, multi-timeframe target packages.

Four levels of uncertainties making comitments difficult

Level 1: uncertainty about the level and structure of future economic activityLevel 2 : uncertainty of actions of others Level 3: uncertainty on the reality of action: understanding the ‘signal’ of serious decarbonisation effort amid short-term uncertainty and inertiaLevel 4: capacity to deliver depending on costs, government capacity, availability of technologies

Mitigation structure

• Combining the short-term and the long-term perspective through a combination of short-term targets and aspirational long-term pathways.

• Align domestic policy processes and international negotiations through collective, predictable expectations about future negotiation cycles.

• Reflect the inertia of infrastructure by updating near-term targets by setting new targets for the next period. For example, in 2020 it would make very little sense to adjust a 2025 target. Rather, new ambition and reduction opportunities should be expressed by more ambitious 2030 and 2035 targets.

Reducing uncertainties

A Global goal : why and how keep 2°

• 2°C target : a directional reference to assess progress at the global level and national contributions.

• a risk management approach recognizing the imperative to avoid risks of higher concentration, delayed action scenarios:

• It should include more operational directional references than the current framing under the Cancun Agreements,

• key quantified conclusions of the IPCC regarding the global 2˚C trajectory as a directional reference point.

• iterations of nationally determined contributions should be taken in the context of the 2˚C target.

• An on-going process of reinforced action to address the gap. Ex sectoral policy efforts,

• Mainly R and D…

Updated contributions

The approach for a dynamic agreement should address three challenges:• Combining the short-term and the long-term perspective through a

combination of short-term targets and aspirational long-term pathways.

• Align domestic policy processes and international negotiations through collective, predictable expectations about future negotiation cycles.

• Reflect the inertia of infrastructure by updating near-term targets by setting new targets for the next period. For example, in 2020 it would make very little sense to adjust a 2025 target. Rather, new ambition and reduction opportunities should be expressed by more ambitious 2030 and 2035 targets.

• rolling, multi-period target framework combined with a long-term low emissions pathway, i.e. an indicative long-term low emissions development strategy.

• 2025/2030 …2050

• A combination of Targets and Pathways

Rolling targets

Three tier approach

• Tier one: absolute, economy-wide targets relative to a predefined base-year/period, including both absolute reduction or absolute growth targets (e.g. for emerging countries), or aspirational peaking targets;

• Tier two: relative, economy-wide targets against GDP (carbon intensity) or population (per capita) or against ex ante defined BAU;

• Tier three: quantitative or qualitative sectoral indicators, targets or policies organized around the major emitting sectors.

The second pillar : actions in support of UNFCCC agreement

• The flute player : • Cities, subnationals authorities • Businesse acting in local or global value chains• Financial institutions :• National development banks• Multilaterals development banks• Pension and Soverereign funds

How to organize ?

• Working on the time horizon

• Risk disclosure

• Long term visions

Its complex stupid!

A role for economists

• Work on this new reality :• Imperfect markets • No carbon price silver bullet solution• Inertia and lock in • Innovation • Co-benefits ….

GOOD LUCK FOR ALL OF US !